I have a question Ive been wondering about and I wanted to ask people for their input because im completely on the fence here.

Here's the problem

Kansas Governor, and man who looks like his face contains sacs to store water Sam Brownback, was elected Governor of Kansas in 2010 after brief stints running for President, being a Senator, and being a member of the House of Representatives.... He is pro-life, believing life begins at conception, opposes gay marriage, trickle down economics, all the conservative checkpoints.

Match made in heaven for a state as conservative as Kansas, right?

Not so much. Not even 2 years into Brownback's term as Governor, hit approval rating overall in the state was about 30%, making him the least popular governor in the entire United States. If you even try to plug his name into google, the first thing that will come up is 'Brownbackistan', the moniker given to Brownback's Kansas that is in shambles.

What went wrong?

Brownback had a personal vendetta against income taxes, to the point that upon being elected he enacted one of the largest tax cuts in the nation. He believed that the tax cuts will lead to job growth and greater wealth which will offset the revenue the state loses from taxing citizens, like Reagan would have loved, only problem was that it never happened..... The tax cuts eliminated the corporate tax on almost 200,000 businesses and slashed tax rates on the top 25% (in Kansas mind you) by 25%. The credit rating of Kansas also got downgraded across the board, with projections of tax income after the tax cuts went into effect falling short at just over 60%.

Okay, so it was a bad experiment. Its not like he is so stubborn he wouldnt raise taxes back up a little bit to make up for it while still keeping them lower than they were before he became Governor....

Except he IS that stubborn. All the negative effects of the tax cuts went down in the middle of 2014, and rather than think he MIGHT have gone too far with tax cuts, Brownback doubled down on his belief that the system would work, and this began to slash spending everywhere rather then raise taxes back up a little bit. The spending cuts were massive, to the point that Kansas literally became the only state without an official Art agency, due to it being defunded. Brownback also laid waste to education spending, cutting so much that some schools are being forced to end the school year early since they are financially incapable of staying open after a certain period of time.... Cuts have also been made to funding road construction, where 2 dozen highway projects that were more then able to be funded are now scrapped due to budget cuts.

But omg, this is where it gets crazy.

In every fight over tax cuts, you expect all the Democrats to line up on one side arguing against the idea, and all the Republicans to line up on the other side arguing for them. Its only their nature, aint it?

Amazingly, no.

Fellow GOP congressmen, feeling particularly vulnerable about their own job security as they take flak from Brownback's failed experiment, are now leaving Brownback out to dry, refusing to approve further spending cuts he is asking for until he rolls back some of his tax cuts he made upon entering office. It got to the point that many of them (literally hundreds) actually endorsed the DEMOCRAT candidate who was running against him in 2014.

Had this happened in any other state, Brownback would have probably been voted out of office, and his grand experiment would have been labeled as a failure and a warning against other states for overzealous tax cuts.

But this is KANSAS. A state so conservative that even though Brownback left the state almost $1 Billion in the hole, they chose to re-elect him anyways, believing that the massive wave of job creation he promised almost 6 years ago is 'just around the corner'..... Why so many people think he is correct is baffling to me, and it brings me to my question:

Who in this case is the bigger idiot?

A) Sam Brownback, for believing his tax cuts would work, refusing to roll them back when they clearly havent, and willing to slash spending to healthcare and education for his pipe dream to finally materialize while running the state into the ground?

or

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

At 4/21/2016 7:06:49 PM, imabench wrote:Who in this case is the bigger idiot?

A) Sam Brownback, for believing his tax cuts would work, refusing to roll them back when they clearly havent, and willing to slash spending to healthcare and education for his pipe dream to finally materialize while running the state into the ground?

or

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

On a side note, I would cast my vote in favor of the people of Kansas. If someone has been a political failure, and you willingly choose to re-elect that individual, that is demonstrative of idiocy. You can't discredit someone for trying new policies, but if they've consistently failed, you also can't re-elect them.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

Well I could argue for Brownback and such, but I'm not going to. Hell, Kansas had to sell sex toys to attempt to fix it's budget decifet. I guess he doesn't know that you can't sell sex toys to people who've already been fvcked.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

It rarely is "straightforward". It's easy for someone to simply cite a bunch of statistics which favour his or her case, even though a closer look may destroy the narrative provided.For instance, Conservatives have long accused Obama of "executive overreach". I don't know true that statement is, but what I would take issue with is the common Liberal retort: "Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any president in recent history!" On the surface, this would appear to be enough to prove that Obama is not guilty of executive overreach. However, what this figure fails to take into account is the "Presidential Memorandum", a form of executive unilateral action which is extremely similar to the executive order (in fact, it would appear that the primary difference is that Executive Orders are "more prestigious").President Obama has issued 235 executive orders. George Bush in his 8 years of office issued 291. However, as of December 17, 2014 (after slightly less than 6 years of office) Obama had issued 198 presidential memoranda, which is 33% more than Bush signed in his 8 years of office. In April 2016 the total number of Presidential Memoranda signed is bound to be noticeably higher than it was at the end of 2014.Whenever you count both executive orders and presidential memoranda it becomes apparent that Obama probably unilaterally exercised his authority more than Bush did when going strictly by the numbers.I did not say all this to prove that Obama is guilty of executive overreach (contemporary presidents like Bush and Obama actually tend to issue fewer executive orders than presidents 50-70 years ago did). Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the story is rarely as simple as a single statistic may make it appear.

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

It rarely is "straightforward". It's easy for someone to simply cite a bunch of statistics which favour his or her case, even though a closer look may destroy the narrative provided.For instance, Conservatives have long accused Obama of "executive overreach". I don't know true that statement is, but what I would take issue with is the common Liberal retort: "Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any president in recent history!" On the surface, this would appear to be enough to prove that Obama is not guilty of executive overreach. However, what this figure fails to take into account is the "Presidential Memorandum", a form of executive unilateral action which is extremely similar to the executive order (in fact, it would appear that the primary difference is that Executive Orders are "more prestigious").President Obama has issued 235 executive orders. George Bush in his 8 years of office issued 291. However, as of December 17, 2014 (after slightly less than 6 years of office) Obama had issued 198 presidential memoranda, which is 33% more than Bush signed in his 8 years of office. In April 2016 the total number of Presidential Memoranda signed is bound to be noticeably higher than it was at the end of 2014.Whenever you count both executive orders and presidential memoranda it becomes apparent that Obama probably unilaterally exercised his authority more than Bush did when going strictly by the numbers.I did not say all this to prove that Obama is guilty of executive overreach (contemporary presidents like Bush and Obama actually tend to issue fewer executive orders than presidents 50-70 years ago did). Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the story is rarely as simple as a single statistic may make it appear.

What about FDR's 3,728 Executive orders?

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

Brownback by a nose, purely for his attempts to destroy the judiciary.

At the end of 2014 it was ruled that he was underfunding schools to an illegal degree and would have to reverse some of his massive spending cuts (http://www.kansascity.com...), he retaliated in various ways as revenge for this.

He stripped rights from the Judiciary, like its ability to appoint local chief judges and set budgets and threatened a lot more like recall elections, lowering the retirement age, etc. However beyond this he signed a bill which would defund the entire judiciary if the law was defunded (http://www.slate.com...).

The governments of the USA and its constituent states are based on the three different branches (Executive, legislative, judiciary) interacting and counting as balances against the others. Brownback decided to throw all that out the window and threaten to destroy one of the other branches if it dared to fulfil its mandated and constitutionally defined role of acting as a check to his power.

That's the kind of radical unconstitutional and undemocratic action that should have people on the right and left coming together to castigate him, but I'm sure someone will still find a way to defend him.

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

Have you met any of them? He11, they have no damn schools.

*waives*

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

Have you met any of them? He11, they have no damn schools.

*waives*

Damn it Lannan. You were so close to out, then they pulled you back in!

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

Have you met any of them? He11, they have no damn schools.

*waives*

Damn it Lannan. You were so close to out, then they pulled you back in!

I can't help it. I'm poor. Besides, I'm going to a private school.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

Have you met any of them? He11, they have no damn schools.

*waives*

I think we should have some special waver or something for the unfortunate sane trapped like lannan13. Like a special passport. Some way to distinguish them from... Well, you know.

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

It rarely is "straightforward". It's easy for someone to simply cite a bunch of statistics which favour his or her case, even though a closer look may destroy the narrative provided.For instance, Conservatives have long accused Obama of "executive overreach". I don't know true that statement is, but what I would take issue with is the common Liberal retort: "Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any president in recent history!" On the surface, this would appear to be enough to prove that Obama is not guilty of executive overreach. However, what this figure fails to take into account is the "Presidential Memorandum", a form of executive unilateral action which is extremely similar to the executive order (in fact, it would appear that the primary difference is that Executive Orders are "more prestigious").President Obama has issued 235 executive orders. George Bush in his 8 years of office issued 291. However, as of December 17, 2014 (after slightly less than 6 years of office) Obama had issued 198 presidential memoranda, which is 33% more than Bush signed in his 8 years of office. In April 2016 the total number of Presidential Memoranda signed is bound to be noticeably higher than it was at the end of 2014.Whenever you count both executive orders and presidential memoranda it becomes apparent that Obama probably unilaterally exercised his authority more than Bush did when going strictly by the numbers.I did not say all this to prove that Obama is guilty of executive overreach (contemporary presidents like Bush and Obama actually tend to issue fewer executive orders than presidents 50-70 years ago did). Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the story is rarely as simple as a single statistic may make it appear.

What about FDR's 3,728 Executive orders?

Yes, I referenced that. But Obama has acted unilaterally more than Bush has, disproving the "least unilateral president in decades" claim.

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

It rarely is "straightforward". It's easy for someone to simply cite a bunch of statistics which favour his or her case, even though a closer look may destroy the narrative provided.For instance, Conservatives have long accused Obama of "executive overreach". I don't know true that statement is, but what I would take issue with is the common Liberal retort: "Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any president in recent history!" On the surface, this would appear to be enough to prove that Obama is not guilty of executive overreach. However, what this figure fails to take into account is the "Presidential Memorandum", a form of executive unilateral action which is extremely similar to the executive order (in fact, it would appear that the primary difference is that Executive Orders are "more prestigious").President Obama has issued 235 executive orders. George Bush in his 8 years of office issued 291. However, as of December 17, 2014 (after slightly less than 6 years of office) Obama had issued 198 presidential memoranda, which is 33% more than Bush signed in his 8 years of office. In April 2016 the total number of Presidential Memoranda signed is bound to be noticeably higher than it was at the end of 2014.Whenever you count both executive orders and presidential memoranda it becomes apparent that Obama probably unilaterally exercised his authority more than Bush did when going strictly by the numbers.I did not say all this to prove that Obama is guilty of executive overreach (contemporary presidents like Bush and Obama actually tend to issue fewer executive orders than presidents 50-70 years ago did). Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the story is rarely as simple as a single statistic may make it appear.

What about FDR's 3,728 Executive orders?

Yes, I referenced that. But Obama has acted unilaterally more than Bush has, disproving the "least unilateral president in decades" claim.

Well I saw that, but people always claim it's the GOP being "Big Evil" around here.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

Have you met any of them? He11, they have no damn schools.

*waives*

I think we should have some special waver or something for the unfortunate sane trapped like lannan13. Like a special passport. Some way to distinguish them from... Well, you know.

Yep, though I do have to say that Kansas is a strange bread. If you go anywhere that's not that "People's Republic of Lawrence" there's always a strong Republican boost. Out in Western Kansas it's a Republican vote no matter who ran. Even if it was Richard Nixon, at least they were sane enough not to vote for Trump. The people here are always GOP which was one of the reasons IKE was a Republican. Though I could easily say the same for California, New York, of Mass, but that's besides the point.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

It rarely is "straightforward". It's easy for someone to simply cite a bunch of statistics which favour his or her case, even though a closer look may destroy the narrative provided.For instance, Conservatives have long accused Obama of "executive overreach". I don't know true that statement is, but what I would take issue with is the common Liberal retort: "Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any president in recent history!" On the surface, this would appear to be enough to prove that Obama is not guilty of executive overreach. However, what this figure fails to take into account is the "Presidential Memorandum", a form of executive unilateral action which is extremely similar to the executive order (in fact, it would appear that the primary difference is that Executive Orders are "more prestigious").President Obama has issued 235 executive orders. George Bush in his 8 years of office issued 291. However, as of December 17, 2014 (after slightly less than 6 years of office) Obama had issued 198 presidential memoranda, which is 33% more than Bush signed in his 8 years of office. In April 2016 the total number of Presidential Memoranda signed is bound to be noticeably higher than it was at the end of 2014.Whenever you count both executive orders and presidential memoranda it becomes apparent that Obama probably unilaterally exercised his authority more than Bush did when going strictly by the numbers.I did not say all this to prove that Obama is guilty of executive overreach (contemporary presidents like Bush and Obama actually tend to issue fewer executive orders than presidents 50-70 years ago did). Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the story is rarely as simple as a single statistic may make it appear.

What about FDR's 3,728 Executive orders?

Yes, I referenced that. But Obama has acted unilaterally more than Bush has, disproving the "least unilateral president in decades" claim.

Well I saw that, but people always claim it's the GOP being "Big Evil" around here.

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

It rarely is "straightforward". It's easy for someone to simply cite a bunch of statistics which favour his or her case, even though a closer look may destroy the narrative provided.For instance, Conservatives have long accused Obama of "executive overreach". I don't know true that statement is, but what I would take issue with is the common Liberal retort: "Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any president in recent history!" On the surface, this would appear to be enough to prove that Obama is not guilty of executive overreach. However, what this figure fails to take into account is the "Presidential Memorandum", a form of executive unilateral action which is extremely similar to the executive order (in fact, it would appear that the primary difference is that Executive Orders are "more prestigious").President Obama has issued 235 executive orders. George Bush in his 8 years of office issued 291. However, as of December 17, 2014 (after slightly less than 6 years of office) Obama had issued 198 presidential memoranda, which is 33% more than Bush signed in his 8 years of office. In April 2016 the total number of Presidential Memoranda signed is bound to be noticeably higher than it was at the end of 2014.Whenever you count both executive orders and presidential memoranda it becomes apparent that Obama probably unilaterally exercised his authority more than Bush did when going strictly by the numbers.I did not say all this to prove that Obama is guilty of executive overreach (contemporary presidents like Bush and Obama actually tend to issue fewer executive orders than presidents 50-70 years ago did). Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the story is rarely as simple as a single statistic may make it appear.

What about FDR's 3,728 Executive orders?

Yes, I referenced that. But Obama has acted unilaterally more than Bush has, disproving the "least unilateral president in decades" claim.

Well I saw that, but people always claim it's the GOP being "Big Evil" around here.

So Kansas is a "blue dog" state?

Not necessarially. They aren't really liberal socially unless you're under 23. I would say more Neo-Con than not.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

It rarely is "straightforward". It's easy for someone to simply cite a bunch of statistics which favour his or her case, even though a closer look may destroy the narrative provided.For instance, Conservatives have long accused Obama of "executive overreach". I don't know true that statement is, but what I would take issue with is the common Liberal retort: "Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any president in recent history!" On the surface, this would appear to be enough to prove that Obama is not guilty of executive overreach. However, what this figure fails to take into account is the "Presidential Memorandum", a form of executive unilateral action which is extremely similar to the executive order (in fact, it would appear that the primary difference is that Executive Orders are "more prestigious").President Obama has issued 235 executive orders. George Bush in his 8 years of office issued 291. However, as of December 17, 2014 (after slightly less than 6 years of office) Obama had issued 198 presidential memoranda, which is 33% more than Bush signed in his 8 years of office. In April 2016 the total number of Presidential Memoranda signed is bound to be noticeably higher than it was at the end of 2014.Whenever you count both executive orders and presidential memoranda it becomes apparent that Obama probably unilaterally exercised his authority more than Bush did when going strictly by the numbers.I did not say all this to prove that Obama is guilty of executive overreach (contemporary presidents like Bush and Obama actually tend to issue fewer executive orders than presidents 50-70 years ago did). Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the story is rarely as simple as a single statistic may make it appear.

What about FDR's 3,728 Executive orders?

Yes, I referenced that. But Obama has acted unilaterally more than Bush has, disproving the "least unilateral president in decades" claim.

Well I saw that, but people always claim it's the GOP being "Big Evil" around here.

So Kansas is a "blue dog" state?

Not necessarially. They aren't really liberal socially unless you're under 23. I would say more Neo-Con than not.

But they're conservatives who hate the GOP. That would make them blue dog democrats, right?

At 4/21/2016 7:11:28 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:You're telling one side of the story. Until all the facts are made clear it isn't a valid question.

What 'other side' is there? He enacted massive tax cuts, they failed, members of his own party tried to sink him, the state is facing massive budget shortfalls, and the people of Kansas still re-elected him anyways..... Its pretty straightforward

It rarely is "straightforward". It's easy for someone to simply cite a bunch of statistics which favour his or her case, even though a closer look may destroy the narrative provided.For instance, Conservatives have long accused Obama of "executive overreach". I don't know true that statement is, but what I would take issue with is the common Liberal retort: "Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any president in recent history!" On the surface, this would appear to be enough to prove that Obama is not guilty of executive overreach. However, what this figure fails to take into account is the "Presidential Memorandum", a form of executive unilateral action which is extremely similar to the executive order (in fact, it would appear that the primary difference is that Executive Orders are "more prestigious").President Obama has issued 235 executive orders. George Bush in his 8 years of office issued 291. However, as of December 17, 2014 (after slightly less than 6 years of office) Obama had issued 198 presidential memoranda, which is 33% more than Bush signed in his 8 years of office. In April 2016 the total number of Presidential Memoranda signed is bound to be noticeably higher than it was at the end of 2014.Whenever you count both executive orders and presidential memoranda it becomes apparent that Obama probably unilaterally exercised his authority more than Bush did when going strictly by the numbers.I did not say all this to prove that Obama is guilty of executive overreach (contemporary presidents like Bush and Obama actually tend to issue fewer executive orders than presidents 50-70 years ago did). Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the story is rarely as simple as a single statistic may make it appear.

What about FDR's 3,728 Executive orders?

Yes, I referenced that. But Obama has acted unilaterally more than Bush has, disproving the "least unilateral president in decades" claim.

Well I saw that, but people always claim it's the GOP being "Big Evil" around here.

So Kansas is a "blue dog" state?

Not necessarially. They aren't really liberal socially unless you're under 23. I would say more Neo-Con than not.

But they're conservatives who hate the GOP. That would make them blue dog democrats, right?

When I said "people" a few posts back I wasn't referring specially to Kansans.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

At 4/21/2016 7:06:49 PM, imabench wrote:I have a question Ive been wondering about and I wanted to ask people for their input because im completely on the fence here.

Here's the problem

Kansas Governor, and man who looks like his face contains sacs to store water Sam Brownback, was elected Governor of Kansas in 2010 after brief stints running for President, being a Senator, and being a member of the House of Representatives.... He is pro-life, believing life begins at conception, opposes gay marriage, trickle down economics, all the conservative checkpoints.

Match made in heaven for a state as conservative as Kansas, right?

Not so much. Not even 2 years into Brownback's term as Governor, hit approval rating overall in the state was about 30%, making him the least popular governor in the entire United States. If you even try to plug his name into google, the first thing that will come up is 'Brownbackistan', the moniker given to Brownback's Kansas that is in shambles.

What went wrong?

Brownback had a personal vendetta against income taxes, to the point that upon being elected he enacted one of the largest tax cuts in the nation. He believed that the tax cuts will lead to job growth and greater wealth which will offset the revenue the state loses from taxing citizens, like Reagan would have loved, only problem was that it never happened..... The tax cuts eliminated the corporate tax on almost 200,000 businesses and slashed tax rates on the top 25% (in Kansas mind you) by 25%. The credit rating of Kansas also got downgraded across the board, with projections of tax income after the tax cuts went into effect falling short at just over 60%.

Okay, so it was a bad experiment. Its not like he is so stubborn he wouldnt raise taxes back up a little bit to make up for it while still keeping them lower than they were before he became Governor....

Except he IS that stubborn. All the negative effects of the tax cuts went down in the middle of 2014, and rather than think he MIGHT have gone too far with tax cuts, Brownback doubled down on his belief that the system would work, and this began to slash spending everywhere rather then raise taxes back up a little bit. The spending cuts were massive, to the point that Kansas literally became the only state without an official Art agency, due to it being defunded. Brownback also laid waste to education spending, cutting so much that some schools are being forced to end the school year early since they are financially incapable of staying open after a certain period of time.... Cuts have also been made to funding road construction, where 2 dozen highway projects that were more then able to be funded are now scrapped due to budget cuts.

But omg, this is where it gets crazy.

In every fight over tax cuts, you expect all the Democrats to line up on one side arguing against the idea, and all the Republicans to line up on the other side arguing for them. Its only their nature, aint it?

Amazingly, no.

Fellow GOP congressmen, feeling particularly vulnerable about their own job security as they take flak from Brownback's failed experiment, are now leaving Brownback out to dry, refusing to approve further spending cuts he is asking for until he rolls back some of his tax cuts he made upon entering office. It got to the point that many of them (literally hundreds) actually endorsed the DEMOCRAT candidate who was running against him in 2014.

Had this happened in any other state, Brownback would have probably been voted out of office, and his grand experiment would have been labeled as a failure and a warning against other states for overzealous tax cuts.

But this is KANSAS. A state so conservative that even though Brownback left the state almost $1 Billion in the hole, they chose to re-elect him anyways, believing that the massive wave of job creation he promised almost 6 years ago is 'just around the corner'..... Why so many people think he is correct is baffling to me, and it brings me to my question:

Who in this case is the bigger idiot?

A) Sam Brownback, for believing his tax cuts would work, refusing to roll them back when they clearly havent, and willing to slash spending to healthcare and education for his pipe dream to finally materialize while running the state into the ground?

or

B) The people of Kansas, for re-electing Brownback despite the tremendous failure that his tenure as Governor has been because they too buy into his pipe-dream that his hundred-million dollar budget shortfalls are good for the future of Kansas?

I would say that the people of Kansas are the stupid ones. There are plenty of extremist politicians running for office, it's up to the electorate to keep them out of office. Obviously these people just vote republican blindly without checking what's actually going on in their state.